Who was Caiaphas in the Bible?

Caiaphas. — Here he first comes into notice, destined shortly afterwards to be the man, who, in the council of the Sanhedrin, as the high priest, condemned the Lord to death, first charging Him with the guilt of blasphemy. He appears again in the Acts. Before him, in conjunction with Annas, Peter and John were brought by the officers of the Temple (Acts 4:6). He was a Sadducee, and received his office A.D. 17 or 18, at the hand of the Roman Procurator, Valerius Gratus, who made and unmade high priests, one might say, at his will. For between Annas and Joseph Caiaphas, Josephus tells us (Ant., XVIII. 2:2), there were three who filled the office: (1) Ishmael, the son of Phabi; (2) Eleazar, a son of Annanus, or Annas, who had formerly held the office; and (3) Simon, the son of Camithus. God's order in the high priesthood was set aside; and a Gentile, Valerius Gratus, put in, it would seem, whom he would of the house of Aaron. Of Joseph Caiaphas little is recorded by Josephus. Made high priest by Valerius Gratus, he was deposed by Vitellius, A.D. 36. We get more about him in Scripture than in the pages of the Jewish historian.

High priest at this time near the Lord's death, he spoke in the council, when they were deliberating what they should do to Christ; and declared, but really writes John, by the spirit of prophecy, that the Lord's death was necessary to save the nation. "Ye know nothing at all," Caiaphas said to the Pharisees (and being himself a Sadducee may explain his way of speaking at that council). "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for you [not, us], that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (49, 50). This was the last real prophetic announcement that fell from an occupant of the pontifical office in Israel. Little, indeed, could he have understood what the Evangelist discerned lay hid in those words. Caiaphas only thought of allaying Roman jealousy by putting the Lord to death. John saw in them a prediction of the Lord as the sin offering, meeting the claims of a holy God on behalf of the godly remnant of the nation. "That the whole nation perish not," said Caiaphas. Precisely so, John could have replied. But the thought of the high priest and the understanding of his words by John were widely different. Caiaphas considered the Roman power, and feared its wrath. John thought of Divine judgment, and of God's provision to escape it by the substitute of His choice. And more, God's thoughts reached out beyond the limits of the nation, and embraced Gentiles within the Divine purpose. For Christ by His death was to gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad (52). Of sheep not of the fold of Judaism the Lord had already spoken (10:16) — sheep outside the company even of those of the dispersion, to whom Peter in later years ministered (1 Peter 1:1). Them also the Lord would bring, and they should hear His voice; and there should be one flock and one Shepherd.

Caiaphas' advice was taken. Indecision was at once at an end in the council. The two great parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, were henceforth at one in the matter. The Lord must die. But when? Who of them knew? However, they would wait for their opportunity, and issued a notification as the Passover approached, that if any man knew where the Lord was in Jerusalem, he should disclose it to the authorities, that they might take Him.

Appointed high priest by the governor Valerius Gratus, A.D. 26, he remained in office until A.D. 36, when he was deposed by the proconsul Vitellius. He prophesied that it was expedient that one man should die for the nation, that the whole nation might not perish. John 11:50-51. He presided at the trial of the Lord, Matt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; John 18:13, 28; and was present when Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrim. Acts 4:6.

Annas. — To Annas the Lord was first taken. Who he was Josephus has told. The son of Seth, he was appointed high priest by Cyrenius, A.D. 6, and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, A.D. 15. "Now," writes Josephus (Ant., XX. 9:1), "the report goes, that this elder Ananus [or Annas] proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests." From Scripture we learn that he was of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 4:6, 5:17); and our Evangelist tells us that Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of the Lord's death, was his son-in-law. Probably being regarded as a man of some experience in judicial matters may account for this informal examination, before remitting the Lord to Caiaphas. And it may be the chief priests hoped, that Annas could extract some admission from the Lord, which might further His condemnation. But as he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not enter into matters with him. Real jurisdiction in such a case he did not possess. "Why askest thou Me?" was the Lord's reply. "Ask them which heard Me, what I have said to them: behold, they know what I said" (21). Who could find fault with that? One of the officers, however, struck the Lord with the palm of his hand, saying, "Answerest Thou the high priest so?" An indignity this was wholly undeserved, but, we must add, not resented. A calm, dignified answer left nothing more to be said: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?" If the smiter had any sense of justice, he must have felt keenly this calm rebuke. The interview with Annas, of which John alone has made mention, now terminated. Annas could extract nothing from his prisoner to further His condemnation. He then sent Him bound to Caiaphas, as we should read (18:24). For any account of the examination before Caiaphas we must turn to Matthew and to Mark; whilst for the recital of the trial before the Sanhedrin we have an account, and the only one, in the Gospel of Luke (22:66-71). Matthew and Mark mention it, but give no details of it. To sum up the matter, Matthew it is and Mark who record the examination before Caiaphas, and they only. Luke it is who tells us of the legal condemnation by the Sanhedrin. And John, noticing not what the Synoptic Gospels record, acquaints his readers with the first attempted examination on that night which was undertaken by Annas. To understand what went on between the Lord's apprehension in the garden and His standing before Pilate, we must consult all four Evangelists; then we shall be informed.

Caiaphas, we are told, was high priest that year, for Herod set up and deposed high priests to suit himself at any time, of course a contradiction to God's original appointment. Evidently inflated with the pride of his own position, Caiaphas haughtily declares the ignorance of his cohorts, and indicates his superior wisdom in finding some justification for their murdering the Lord Jesus. “one man,” he says, “should die for the people (vv. 49-50).

(a) We find then the Pharisees in council with the chief priests, men of a different creed and interests, but with whom they could make common cause against Christ. They have to confess that He whom they are unrelentingly pursuing "doeth many signs." Their only argument from this is that if they let Him alone, all men will believe on Him, and the Romans will take away their place and nation. This brings forward Caiaphas who rebukes them for their inability to make so simple a calculation as that between the value of one man and a nation. He does not speak of right but of profit, and claims this for his own side of the account. Nor does he realize the blinding nature of self-interest, nor question the competence of his conclusion in the least. His arithmetic is so simple it can hardly be worked wrong.

John 11:49-52. In what follows we are permitted to see that, above all the deliberations of wicked men, God carries out His counsels; and to effect these counsels, Jesus was about to die. God uses this wicked high priest to announce prophetically the death of Christ. Caiaphas, flinging aside all pretension to righteousness, and acting only on expediency, pleads that whatever Jesus might have done, or what ever people might think of Him, it is better that He should die than that the whole nation should perish. With Caiaphas, as too often with the politicians of this world, it is no question of what is right, but of what is expedient (or "profitable", N. Tn.). This man is ready to crucify a just Man to preserve if possible the position of a guilty nation.

They bind Him who is bound already, the meek Lamb of sacrifice; and now we have a scene how different in the high priest's court. The questioning before Annas is only given by John; who on the other hand does not relate, though he implies, the trial before Caiaphas. As father-in-law of the latter, and one who had been at a former time, high priest himself, he may have been, as Lange suggests, regarded by the Jews as still the true one; his relationship to the present one giving him his opportunity also to affect a position which he could not openly take. The Romans set up one after another as it pleased them, — a thing rightly enough offensive to the upholders of the law, and which seems to appear as this in the remark twice made, that Caiaphas was the high priest for that year (ver. 13; John 11:49). The two seem to have occupied even the same house. Caiaphas, we are reminded, was the man who had given counsel to the Jews as to the expediency of one man dying for the people, which God overruled to be a prophecy of a Saviour, but which showed him as a judge prepared with his verdict. Arenas is as much allied to him in spirit as in flesh. His whole aim here is to ensnare the Lord with questions as to His disciples and His doctrine, for which Christ refers him to what He had taught everywhere with the greatest publicity. It was for His accusers to make their charges, and prove them against Him. To the one who smites Him for want of reverence for the high priest He only replies with a quiet remonstrance.

They take Him to Annas, father in law to the high priest, Caiaphas. The Romans had made a practice of requiring a change in the high priesthood frequently, a totally unscriptural thing, Annas had been high priest at a previous time, and possibly the Jews still desired to give him this place, though they could not do so officially. In verses 19 and 22 he is even spoken of as the high priest, for the hearing before Annas continued till verse 24, which is properly translated, “Annas therefore sent Him bound unto Caiaphas.” Only John speaks of this hearing, and does not give any account of the hearing before Caiaphas, as do the other Gospels. It may have been that both of them were occupying the palace of the high priest. But it was Caiaphas who had urged the death of the Lord.

217 John 11:49, 51. — "Being high priest of that year." Instead of election for life, the office was held at the whim of the Romans, according to Josephus, "Antiq.," 18:2. Eleazar and Simon (appointed in succession by Valerius Gratus, after the deposition of Annas) each held the office for only one year.

From Annas He is seat to Caiaphas the man who had given counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. He would offer Him up, at the Roman altar, to ensure their peace and favour with Rome. The Holy Spirit however, turned the words to better account, using it as prophetic of a Saviour, the result of whose work would “gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad” (John 11:52).

Before the ecclesiastical court, the council sought false witnesses against the Holy Prisoner, “to put Him to death.” How base and wicked men can be; and yet withal religious and apparently genuinely zealous. Here, He is charged with “blasphemy”—later, before Pilate the charge is “rebellion.” The charge before Caiaphas was a real one, “He had made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). They had been stung to madness by His words in the parable of the vineyard (Matt. 21), and knew the implication of the words “This is the heir, come let us kill him and seize on his inheritance.” Now they are carrying out their base purpose, and are ready to swear anything, if only He might be put to death. Under oath He is commanded to reply if He “be the Christ the Son of Cad.” To this He can give but one answer, “Thou hast said.” Thus He becomes His own witness maintaining the truth of His previous testimony and adding, “Henceforth shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” This is characteristic of the testimony in Matthew’s Gospel, and here we find the heads of the nation, lashed to fury against the Saviour, their unrestrained passion surging against Him. While they cry, “He is guilty of death,” the high priest—as if in holy horror—rent his robe and declared the trial ended.